The best audio in the world need the best room in the world ... Nobody can afford it ...

Forget it ...

In the same way you forgot the top F1 car which need a designed road for his performance when you drive any normal usual very good car ...

Be creative and redesign or optimize your Toyota or your Ford...

Audio is about being creative and about acoustic learnings and learning design ... It is not and never had been about the best in the world ... ( Save for the like of Bill Gates or Bezos)

I am so proud of my low cost system optimized and modified , so good it is , with his not to heavy limitations , that i almost pity those who spend 50 times the amount of money i put in it for a better experience for sure than mine but not so much far in advance that what they think anyway, and thats is my point ...

When you reach the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold , defined as some balance ratio of quality between all the acoustics factors involved; you are happy with the music , you listen without stop and knowing that some way better system/room exist dont impede your ectasy at all ... There is a minimal threshold ...Learn how to reach it ...

Creativity and music exclude hate ...

Ectasy exclude envy ...

But the bad news : creativity dont always  exclude pride ...

I am very proud of my peanuts costing system/room  ... I apologize for that and for my  long and highly vocal posts...

😁😊😉

Those of us that can’t afford the REAL high end gear want to soothe our regret by saying the products are overpriced and cater to snobs. Those that can afford the very expensive gear lament that others that cannot afford it do not know what they are talking about and are just jealous.

The fact that a process is methodically established and rigorously as a high cuisine protocol "chef" dont means it is relevant to be called science ...It can be based on scientific attitude as medecine is, but medecine based on science is also a healing human art ...It is not reducible to linear diagnostic eliminative methods automation so useful thery can be and they are ...

Science is not about protocol and statistics , even if there is protocols and statistics in science for sure ...The attitude and protocol of the INDIVIDUAL  thinking process and of awareness direction are primary for creativity ...Standardization of the thinking process is the death of art as it is the death of science ....Technology subsist very well to  the standadization of the thinking process in a new religious form : transhumanism ...

Then there is an abuse of the word here using the word science associated to double blind test  ... The simple or double blind test may be objectives controls method  they are not sciences "per se" ... The bowl containing water is not the water ...

In Acoustics the neurophysiology of hearing and the multiple theories of hearings are the background behind which any objecttive description of the facts must be interpreted to be called science ... Acoustics is a science, not double blind test which is a tool and a protocol which may be or may be not part of a process , the results of such tests are facts that waited to be interpreted ... These test are not a mechanism for producing facts they are themselves merely facts among other facts waiting to be interpreted in the context of psycho-acoustics theories ...

As i said simple blind test are usual in any desing process , double blind test protocols, cannot be used on a day to day designing routine process ...They are mainly useful at the end as a marketing or as a manifestation of a result for everybody who want to try ...

When an audiophile design his system parts together in an long and continuous optimization process mechanically, electrically and acoustically , he use simple blind test by intention or by accident or the two ...

Proposing to audiophiles a public double blind test protocols is meaningfull for secondary acoustic facts : which cables make a difference for example ... It is impractical and useless for primary psycho- acoustic facts evaluation which may resulted from multiple electrical,mechanical and acoustical specific factors all together ...It is way easier to learn how to listen and hear objectively by trials and errors and by analysing scientific principles behind the audio system/room /ears ...

Simple blind tests are s necessary and are enough for all designers and audiophiles ... Claiming that double blind test must be done by audiophiles is scientist ideology at best not science and may be an organized deception on a stage at worst ...

Industry using products as new drugs need these double blind protocols to eliminate placebo effects first and second to compute statistics for the establishment of the effect of a drug , this drug can be useless by the way, it does not matter for them .... In the perception of sound qualities, placebo effect and biases are inevitable, we must learn how to put them aside not necessarily to erase them ...Qualia too are studies in acoustics not only physical waves ..

In psycho-acoustics too scientist designed double blind tests , for example to measure some aspect of sound perception , but they do it as a protocol to ELIMINATE FOR A MOMENT a biased interpretation and search for the correct theory behind the facts when they can isolate them, and they use this protocol statistically ... This method cannot be transfered to audio evaluation perception directly in a room during the designing process of one designer ...As i said simple blind test is enough during the optimization of the audio perceptive and choosing process ...

Scientism masquareding as science is a big problem nowadays ...It has been one for centuries ...Materialism was this unsunkable Titanic of scientism till he encounter the invisible iceberg : quantum mechanics ...Now technological cults has replaced the sunked Titanic materialism and want to impose this ideology on the world for a complete control of the inexisting free spirit ...Materialism was affirmative : only matter exist ....Now the refined ressuscitated materialism in the technological cults as transhumanism devalorise humans to be replaced by "intelligence" because if matter dont exist , the soul dont exist too , only abstract intelligence existm machines ...No free will and no soul ....

You are right about the phone then i apologize for my remark ...

😑

As for the BACCH SP I have already written about it on the thread regarding EQ. What more would you like me to say about it? And keep in mind, *this* thread is about making up reasons why some audiophiles hate “high end audio.” It’s not about actual game changing new technology in audio.

You are right about this specfic thread question too too ...😑

My observation was there only to say that BACCH filters is a more interesting matter and more important than your debunking invitation to solve costly cables differences obsession among audiophile ...

For me audio is mainly and primarily about acoustics not about price tag...Then not about double blind test either ...More about acoustics parameters as in the BACCH filters case and real revolution .. You are way more well placed than me to spoke about it if you mind about people here and mind about giving them a real important information instead of a patronizing song ......

I guess it is the case for you too acoustics matter the most  , if i put aside your double blind test protocol insistance which insistance is also partaken by the objectivist crowd ...Hence the negative reaction against you from people who dont want to be patronized , nevermind if they are wrong or right about their cables tasting with or without double blind tests ...

Hate come from ignorance...There is nothing else to say about hate ...

😊

I used simple blind test in my working acoustic process , and most people may or already use it ...

But if we are not obsessed by our 35 amplifiers and 103 cables and 57 dac , we dont need to compare them in a double blind test ....

Most audiophiles buy few cables and called it job done ... As i did to turn to more serious matter : acoustics ...

Most audiophiles must tune their room and study acoustics a bit ...No need for double blind test for that ,...

Most audiophiles must adress the electrical noise floor of the gear/room/house; no need for double blind test here ...

Most audiophiles must treat their speakers and gear against vibrations and resonance , even their headphones ; no need for a double blind test here ...

As you can see my post also is an information ...

Then you can read it and reply to me : " ok i understand why most audiophiles as you dont need double blind test ...Simple blind test may be enough most of the times " ...😁😊

Do you catch it ?

Now why not explaining instead the BACCH filters you already own to people here who for the most part are ignorant of this revolution and inform them about a real matter instead of crusading for a trivial very well not so useful known matter : double blind test ...

Just my two cent advice ...Choueiri is more important for audio than sellers of the ABX DBT toy ... true science is more interesting than stance about gear tastes testing ...

Acoustics rule audio and the gear not the reverse ....

« The cherry never beat the cake, do you need a double  blind test ? »--Groucho Marx 🤓

Do whatever the hell you want. All I said was ABX doesn’t have to be complex or difficult to do thanks to a number of ABX programs. That’s just information. What you or anybody else does with that information is up to you and them.

You misinterpreted my post because you are too captive of your blinders testing motto ...

Nobody need a ABX DBT to tune a room or to modify a pair of speakers or headphone etc ...

Must i use an ABX comparator to know if my electrical panel is better working for my audio component with or without my homemade plates ?

I dont need it for comparing dac or amplifier because i dont upgrade anyway and even if i upgrade i will not need them ...

If i had been able to tune 100 homemade Helmholtz resonators from few inches to 8 feet by ears and modify my room i can trust my ears to pick what suit me ...

Go for electronical perfection , i myself prefer learning by experiments with my ears and i am happy with creativity my own way ...

Your protocols suit best the cables collectors ... I am not one ...Then before objecting to someone try to read him right ...

When someone tune a room he dont need ABX test , only some measures and his ears ... Or a DSP ...

And please learn to use the bloc quote just above the post window when using a quote for another post , it will be less fatiguing to read your post ...😁 it is more easy  to figure out than the ABX protocol ...

“I did not need these programs because i only use homemade solutions”

that would explain why you find ABX DBTs to be overly complicated and difficult. The programs you don’t need are the ones that make it simple and easy

I am very surprised that nobody discover that i post from Antartica...

It is the reason why my signal noise level is so good...

But the vibration control here is mandatory on suddenly earthshaking flowing ice ...

The acoustic room is very good between each whistling blizzard ...

My only public for double blind test would be indifferent pinguins ...

but when you are alone in what is like another planet you dont mind about "true science" ... You listen music happily deluded by sounds qualities nevermind their source ... ...

By the way reverberation here is a new problem to solve because the speed of sound is slower in cold temperature in my large huge room ......

Good evening i must keep the stove running ..😊

I can add to my point after the article i mention above about the aural memory this interesting french doctoral thesis titled :

Acoustic characterization of relationships between
biological movements and sound perception:
application to the control of synthesis and
learning gestures by Etienne Thoret

https://theses.hal.science/tel-01105122/document

There is no singular storage memory place in the body, it is not localized and not decoupled from the general set of gestures in our habit behaviour... We remember the best what we had learned to produce in our daily context or routine especially when associated with an emotional content experience ... ...

Then the difference between a device and his absence for a meaningful evaluation of his effect need a context which is not alien to our daily routine and interpretation context to be valuable, the opposite of what ideological objectivist ask for systematically for any small difference which is beyond ridiculous ...

It is why simple blind test in work specific stages in a personal journey work better than public double blind test on a stage theater ...

I did my work , i dont ask other people to put a show to make a point...

i trained my ears without the need to prove anything ... My acoustical musical experience is enough ...I dont sell products nor did i sell an ideology ...

I did not need these programs because i only use homemade solutions and i dont buy cables or costly tweaks or costly gear upgrade...

It is way easier to use simple blind tests multiple time in the working optimization context way easier and more useful than ONE public stage show ... Anyway i see no valid reason to use that with my modified 10 bucks Schumann generators now for example ,save to convince you after a public test to buy some 😊...And anything is further from my intention than arguing with people about qualitative effect i gain from my device in specific constrainted acoustic context and pushing them toward expansive devices i ask for experiments in their private home at low cost ... I see it as a meaningless crusade asking for more for the average people out of a laboratory ... Sorry...

You answered all my argument save the main one : I favor multiple simple blind tests in the same acoustical context and relax routine of the listener-tweaker and i dont see the need for most audiophile of anything more save for the scientific laboratory of the industry or for objectivist crusaders show ...

You completely put aside my point about aural memory and routine behaviour in a known environment  and put aside completely the difference between a step by step incremental process of multiple changes of parameters and devices in a known acoustical working environment and a public stage show about a singular minute change out of any known habitual working context ... Simple ...

For aural memory and behaviour :

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04675-8

Common sense dictate such observations i made ... Repeating your line as a preacher dont change common sense ...

no I don’t see it. There are programs that allow users to easily do ABX DBTs. And it’s not “against an audiophile’s claims.” ABX DBTs are not for or against any claims.

Then we use the same ...And i never ask anybody here to be believed to pass a  public double blind test and not even a private simple blind test ... Guess why ? 😁

Double blind protocols may be applied with company sponsors or with costlier products ...

It make no sense for me in AN INCREMENTAL mostly acoustic process ...

 What is simple with a cable had no sense in a room with a cheap homemade device change  ... Simple blind test is enough in private ... Any advocating of Double blind test complex protocol AGAINST any audiophile claims value is preposterous and ideological ... I hope you see it ?

I dont need double blind test in official setting to test my cheap chinese modified Schumann generators location grid (each one on or off)  and their ability to change my perception of sound ... Unvolontary blind test by accident and chance and voluntary blind tests were enough ...  They happenned by forgotting to put some of them on or by conscious testing decision,  then I did them and it work perfectly well ...

It c would be impossible to organize that in any other room anyway , especially as a public show  for the sake of what objectivist call "science" at the singular which never exist in any other way than a belief ......( dont suggest to me cartoon comic objection as the way the earth is no more  seen as stationary )...

Then i read many double blind test mandatory  proposition as an ideological discussion about  divided groups opinions about the efficiency of  official or homemade products ...Because most of the times it will be a show , and a show  impossible to entertain and organize anyway for the average guy as myself ...

Simple blind test informal work totally well and are enough for each one of us in private ...

The aural memory is not located in a specific place in the body or brain but is associated with multiple places and more than that on multiple levels and associated like a set of gestures to all the body and not only the separated brain  and is associated  to an acoustic context too where it work then  optimally ... Then aural memory is more accessible in a routine habit in a very well known acoustic environment and in habitual relaxed circonstances ... Uprooting a listener is impeding the aural memory especially about debatable  minute sound details  separate meanings ...

But  multiple simple private blind tests  in the opposite to a  public singular double blind test protocol test are in my experience necessary and impose themselves without any ideological need  , simply by the nature and in the context  of a cumulative incremental step by step process of optimization ... Those who urge in a strong manner about Double public blind test are not in an optimization process which asked for a very  long duration in months  and years as mine was  and with hundred of changes , they are in an ideological  crusade...

It is very easy to verify by the appeal of any "crusader" to "science" in the singular mode...i trust science only in the plural modes ...Not ideology ... Sound quality is a complex phenomenon which cannot be determined by double public blind test in any way, they for sure can be and had been used in official acoustic experiments context but a laqboratory is not a stage ... ... Not understanding that is not understanding what is sciences ... Simple private blind test are enough and done by almost everybody unvolontarily or not ...There is no real debate here only subjectivists against objectivists... I put my interest in acoustics with an s ...

I use single blind protocols for the majority of my shootouts. Works perfectly fine for their purpose.

@mahgister , it doesn’t have to be the only proof....but, why wouldn’t a golden ear bat have the courage to pass a blind comparison on a subjective tesimony he provided? For example, i have passed cable comparisons 18/20 to 20/20 times on my rig (highly statistically significant). It helped zip the yapper of a ASR educated moron who lives in my town. He’s a very reformed cat now. Lol

Put your money where your mouth is boys (When the going gets tough, the tough get going!).

I think you have not understood what i am saying ...

First i do not have to put my money where my mouth is ...😁 I dont play game ...

I for example used simple blind test myself ( not double blind) with my small grid of Schumann generators (10 bucks each) and i pass it for my own education and working .. I dont sell this ... And there is no known science about this as much as i know ..

...

Second i dont like the expressions "golden ears" not much as "tin foil hat" they are insults ..

Any person with his hearing trained with acoustics concepts in a room by simple experiments learn something ... No need to have "golden ears" ...

There is a big difference between double blind test public protocol and simple blind test in private setting used in your own audio optimization process in an incremental number of steps , with all the time you want , all the repetition you wanted , with the music you pick which is well known to you ( for me albums i know for fifty years) and within an acoustic set of conditions you have put yourself together and which you know very well, all this in complete relaxation...

Any audiophile working on his system use or MUST use simple blind test ...

Public blind test protocols may be interesting and revalatory on some aspects of a product , but they are more a show and very difficult to put in place rigorously and do not demonstrate anything of great value save in a statistical way ... For any individual experience they are useless ... Simple blind test is on the opposite a necessary tool for all of us because very simple to use as a tool ...

I dont sell product, i dont recommend gear and by the way i dont buy tweaks, save at peanuts cost, i created my own devices homemade at no cost and i dont suggest anything as fundamental save acoustics concepts and simple experiments which are more important than any price tag components ..

i dont feel the need to prove anything to anyone... My 700 bucks speakers and headphone system speak for me to my ears ... There is no reason and no no need to appeal to double blind test protocol in room design and for acoustic tuning and tuned devices as Helmholtz resonators and other acoustic devices...

And when i tune by ears the damping load of my speakers and my coupling/decoupling sandwich of materials to control vibrations and resonance i never need a blind test ...😁

When we need your ears , you dont doubt them you tested them by using them , your taught them in experiments even with simple blind test when the work ask for it ... The final result need no public proof ... I dont need to give proof to advise people as i did for years here to study basic acoustics BEFORE upgrading ...( and basic acoustics is not few costly panels on a wall by the way )

 

@mahgister , it doesn’t have to be the only proof....but, why wouldn’t a golden ear bat have the courage to pass a blind comparison on a subjective tesimony he provided? For example, i have passed cable comparisons 18/20 to 20/20 times on my rig (highly statistically significant). It helped zip the yapper of a ASR educated moron who lives in my town. He’s a very reformed cat now. Lol

Put your money where your mouth is boys (When the going gets tough, the tough get going!).

 

 

We can discuss...

But discussion is a meeting between people who spoke with one another without prejudices...

Asking for a double blind test as only proof for any subjective testimony given in good faith in a hobby site about anyone using something in his audio system /room is asking too much from a too high chair ...😁

It is a hobby site not a pseudo-scientific or even a serious circle about electrical measurement as a hobby ...

Speaking about the gear is a hobby , and measuring and speaking about the electrical specs verified as the only valuable information over anything else is another hobby as playing with tools is another hobby .. ...

My own hobby is more about acoustics and music ...Way less about the gear piece listenings than the average subjectivist hobbyist, or way less about the electrical specs verified and presented as unique guarantee for a good S.Q. as the average objectivist hobbyist ...

We must respect the experience and beliefs of the other people ... It is not so hard to do with only arguments, no insults...

By the way scottwheel it would have been way more useful to explain why the BACCH filters you already own are an acoustic revolution instead of pushing people in their corner with the urgent use of double blind test as the only way to validate an experience they already claim as their own meaningful experience , nevermind if they are right or wrong ... ...Respect must be winned ...

Helping people is not giving them an ideological lesson first and last  but a true useful information ...

I am sure that you are not jealous, petty , narrow minded more than most of us anyway , and you are serious as we are ...

This does not means that all i did in my room incrementally had no value for me because i used simple blind test and not Double blind test with controllers ...

Insisting so much on double blind test mark you as an objectivist attacking subjectivist crowd here ...It is inescapable ...

Why not criticizing double blind test protocol as being impracticable in individual audio optimization with a specific system/room/ears ?

Accepted knowledge as you said dont bother itself with the difference a piece of shungite on an amplifier can do compared to a piece of quartz, does it means this experiment is preposterous because i did not wait for James Randi double blind test to perceive it ?

The actual state of science so extraordinary it appear technologically by the way is primitive compared to what we can foresee with a small imagination grounded in the last decades discoveries ...

Now read me right , i think sound qualities exist and are improved for perception by psycho-acoustics discoveries applied in audio ... This dont means that i cannot made my own experiment which will have a value for me not for all others ...

scottwheel 74 posts 12-02-2023 at 06:43pm “You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid...” Not what I said. When done well they serve as objective evidence of real audible differences or lack there of. Sighted anecdotal evidence is simply unreliable and doesn’t work as evidence. Particularly when the anecdotes run contrary to accepted knowledge. I don’t think anyone here is actually thinking about what I am saying. It looks like they are trying to force what I say into their safe stereotypes to protect their beliefs. The idea that there can even be an audiophile who has actually had extensive experience with “high end” tweaks, cables, amps etc. And is perusing state of the art audio regardless of price. And is genuinely committed to finding out what affects sound quality and what does not. And does not share their beliefs is just plain scary. My position can’t be written off as a lack of experience or jealousy or narrow mindedness.

You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid...

I claim that any audiophiles in an incremental process of tuning his system with electrical,mechanical or material and acoustical devices use or must use simple blind test as part of his audio system optimization ...

There is no claim of universal validy if i claim that my experience suggest that cable X in my system Y in a room Z for my ears make some qualitative change ...

There is only a claim of a change in me and for me in some specific complex set of electrical,mechanical and acoustical conditions impossible to repeat probably in some other conditions and for some other ears , thats all ...

Using this audiophile claim of personal experience , right or wrong , to discredit any speech about any experience , save one validated by double blind test is not science it is debunking strategy about marketing of some cables , or debunking strategy against someone claim ...

Objectivist are deluded by gear properties as much as subjectivists are because replacing ears subjectivity by electrical tools specs is as deceptive ...

Psycho-acoustics concept and experiments rules the gear and the tool, not the reverse ...

Then debunking a claim is not so simplistic as using a double blind test ... Especially if someone knows the difficulties related to the complex protocol behind it ...And even with this protocol applied, we cannot debunk someone claims generally ...Double blind test work statistically not so much in individual case ...

In any incremental optimizing work as listener in his room , it is enough to do simple repeated blind test in my experience ...I did them as any designer do also ...I dont need double blind test to know what work for me and what did not work ...

And i dont need to sell anything as an audio company does... Audio company can use double blind test as marketing ploy ... I dont need that test, i just need to listen to the "new" device they sell after their test to evaluate the level of change and the degree of change in relation to his price in my own system with his one peculiarities and needs ... If the change is illusory i dont think they will make much money ... Audio company make money with the look of the gear, and publicity and sometimes a good design well evaluated for his price or overcharged ... Dont need a double blind test to guess that before buying ...

Forgot double blind test and buy psycho-acoustics books and books about hearing and make some simple experiments ...Dont conflate acoustic experience with a limited set of electrical measured specs as some deluded objectivists do ...

«Measures dont say all the truth, because all measures, known and unknown, are not equals»--Anonymus designer

«Is the form of the universe a one side surface or a two side surface ?»-- Anonymus cosmologist

It is truly amazing how many of you think you can speak for me and what *I* believe about things that have never been mentioned.

@mahgister "scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles"

It has been done implicitly.

It is precisely what my post suggested if you read it ... His idea about sound qualities came from scientism not from science ... And using double blind set as  a Procustean bed to do it make of him an indisclosed objectivist ... 😁

Yes but this does not contradict my point , because humans can be trained and are specifically trained in visual experiences , wine tasting , as in music and acoustic or speech recognition etc ...

All of what is perceived can be explained today or tomorrow by sciences but this fact dont means that the explanation will be the actual accepted scientific explanation ... There is no consensus in hearing theories actually , only a basic consensus around the technology ...

We perceive the sound of an amplifier all together the same way in a general way of speaking yes, but if i change a cable or put a piece of a shungite chunk on the amplifier or instead a piece of quartz, some will perceive a change , and some will claim that it is impossible to perceive a change because of Maxwell equations, Helmholtz hearing theory and Fourier mapping of sounds ... Instead of training their ears they will shut down any other possibilities ...But all these theories are not enough to understand sound perception as it is , even if they could be and they are actually the basis of very useful technologies ...

Remember when people thought that seeing without eyes was impossible ? Now it is possible for everyone becoming blind with a training ...

It is the samething with sound , we can now "see" sounds with our hands with a vibrating object in our hand  ( a balloon) ...

But most everybody does perceive the colors the same way.

Exactly and the objectivist as the subjectivist are focussing on the GEAR piece, with their taste for the subjectivist and with electrical measures of the specs as the main ground of sound qualities ; the two sides ignore  psycho-acoustics and hearing theories and deep mystery  ...

This is why the two groups are deluded in their own opposite way , deluded by their "tastes" for the gear or deluded by the measured electrical specs ......

At least the subjectivist trust their ears for the better or the worst but the ears which must be trained by acoustics is the only ground for audio experience ...Not the electrical tool so useful it is ...

I will add that anyone participating in a DBT typically has a dog in this fight. They either want or dont want to hear a difference. The results can be tainted accordingly. The objectivist have created just as viable a market by taking a vocal position as have the subjectivists.

scottwheel are you secure in your shoes?

If yes why trying to convince others people who trust their ears rightfully or wrongfully ?

My self i know with my ears that the cables i tried made a small difference ...

Perhaps some can make a bigger difference ... I dont know and i am not interested by cables , especially costlier one, not because they will not affect my S.Q. but because for me it is minor ...

Why in the hell are you so obstinate to negate other people ears experience, even if they are deluded ?

I believe them myself because cables make a difference but a very small one compared to electrical, mechanical and acoustical working controls ...

Is you mission in life is transmission of the double blind test scripture ?😇

Why not explaining to people instead of asking for blindtest what is the BACCH filters and why it matter more than cable or amplifier upgrade? this is way more important...

😊

Anybody knowing how to design a room know that seeing the room as we want it done so beautiful it is ,will not improve acoustic...😊

I am not in a contest where the look of a beautiful piece of gear can influence the impression some people ask me to write in front of a veil masking the gear ...

I just returned a piece of gear supposed to be better costlier and more beautiful than my vintage not so beautiful amplifier... i paid it the same price than all my system and i loose 300 bucks returning it ... I returned the upgrade because all acoustic factors were worst save the electrical noise floor which was better with a tremendous power supply ( synergy problem probably ) Did i needed a double blind test to mask the more advanced new technology piece and the more beautiful and the costlier one or the opposite ? No ...😊 I was biased in favor of this upgrade though ...I decided listening few minutes for my vintage piece ... I trusted my ears ...

What has a meaning statistically as a useful tool  is preposterous when applied for one person system optimization especially when this optimization process is incremental in a very well known specific environment ...I used informal blind test for sure in my system optimization as a tool not as a debunking practice circus ...

You think like an ideologue who sell a salad with a hidden goal ... Throwing a gauntlet to all people here with a statistical tool ( blind test) which you used as a debunking tool is propaganda ...

James Randi acted the same to prove that no " miracles" exist... The poor dude never looked too hard...there is even books written about hundred miracles right now no science can explain ...

Nothing is more easy than to exhibit "miracles" around the world...

Some are not provable but many are proved even by science ...James Randi at least was a showman not only an ideologist ...

The same materialism and transhumanist today debunk the "existence of free will " ... Without even realizing the complete contradiction implied by the free will intention of doing such debunking of the free will existence ... Sam Harris did not know better , he conflate free will thinking with free choices and no choice ... What a deep thinker indeed ...😊

Some are more gullible than me ...

Is it your ears you trust or your eyes?

No one can be against blind test ...

We use them in an informal manner when we must verify some thing, location, effect, etc...

But the ideological stance using this tool as a method for the elimination of any qualia perceived as delusional in a systematic way against anyone claiming something about any piece of gear or any factors , rightfully or wrongly, nevermind , is irritating for many ...

Anybody using a new devices can and must take a blind test in his own way if there is a doubt about a product ... I did it with my Schumann generators grid to test if the effect is an illusion or real ... I did it twice , the first time unvolontarily because i forgot to switch them on ... The next time i try them in a blind test with my wife ...

And perhaps the systematic proposition of these test at all interventions about any qualities experienced by someone also may reflect an erroneous take on audio and on acoustics experience , a focus more on the gear than on acoustic circonstances and factors ... So yes, the anger of some subjectivist audiophiles can be a defense mechanism , but the systematic rejection by professional blind tester objectivist of the subjective experience resulting from the trained biases of some audiophiles is also a problem ...

it is why i cannot be an objectivist nor an objectivist ... But i prefer subjectivists which at least trust their ears ... Because i believe in acoustics i trust my ears too ...

This does not means that my ears cannot be deceived but they need to be trained and tested by my own blind test on the spot because blind test is a tool for me not a show to debunk people ... And if audio is not about gear taste first and last , it is not either about electrical measuring tools first and last , it is about acoustic training and psycho-acoustics knowledge first and last ...

in the incremental process of tuning a system mechanically, electrically and acoustically there is no big place for placebo effect and delusion and negative biases ... Tuning a room system ask for hundred and hundreds of modification that add together in some direction ... No need for a double blind test at the end to know that our system is metamorphosed completely by these many hundred of modifications ...

For sure if someone claim that a mere cable had completely transformed his system we dont need double blind test to debunk his claim as an exageration at best and at worst a deception or a self deception ...

Cables made generally small changes compared to vibration/resonance mechanical control, compared to electrical noise floor level control, and especially compared to acoustics modification which are hugely impactful... Even compared to some other minor optimization devices , cables are less spectacular changes generally in my experience ...I had observed more positive changes by the way i myself modify my own cables but this is another story and i dont sell anything anyway ... And yes i blind tested these addition i use with my cables .. 😊

.. 😁😊

These tests should inform audiophiles about the nature of how we perceive sound. If the mere existence of these tests anger you maybe you should think about why. Maybe it just hits too close to home and threatens your belief system. And your anger is just a defense mechanism trying to protect your emotional investment in your beliefs?

...

Excellent post nonoise ...

😊

Then i believe you are of good faith ...

We are in the same boat ... I dont buy anything very costly because i can be satisfied with acoustic basics and relatively low cost gear ...I listen to my music and i had invested more in them and in books than in audio gear by far ...

I am not an expert in audio, only someone able now to embed any system at any price not in the best possible ways as an acoustician  but on a reasonnably good ways ...

But i like to read about hearing theory and acoustics and music a lot ...

Welcome here ...

“We are not in the same business here ...”

I’m not in any business here. I work in film not in audio.

”Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi;”

again I’m not in business here. But when I look at the state of the hobby it is clear that there aren’t enough voices in it calling out the shady and dubious products on the market. Those products dominate the market. Here we have a thread that attempts to rationalize the existence of audiophiles such as myself by trying to dismiss us as haters of high end audio, jealous of audiophiles who buy expensive cables and power cords etc. Or lack any experience with “real” high end audio. I chimed to debunk that mischaracterization of audiophiles such as me that don’t buy into high end cables and power cords. I’m not jealous. I used to own “high end” cables back when I believed in them. It’s not an affordability issue it’s an issue of spending money ineffectively. It’s not about hating high end audio. I am quite passionate about audio and music. It’s certainly not from any exposure to “high end” audio. I have heard many a million dollar plus system over the years at shows, dealerships and the hom s of affluent audiophiles on four different continents. And I am not the only one.

“myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...”

I’m just an audiophile who is passionate about sound quality and music. But I am also a skeptic who believes in science and seeks genuine expert advice. There are a lot of posers in the audiophile world and few genuine experts. I don’t believe everyone in good faith. Dishonesty abounds in this world. I know enough about how humans hear, process and remember sound to understand how we can honestly reach erroneous conclusions about sound and I accept those limitations in myself.

 

By the way because i dont buy any tweaks...then i do not sell anything and i had nothing to prove to you or to anybody ...

Because i tuned my room/speakers relation in an incremental long process, if i never used DOUBLE blind test in an objective environment for sure, for the period of one year full time when i worked on my acoustics i used simple blind test systematically each week voluntarily or unvoluntarily ... For example pieces of shielding materials i designed to protect my central electrical panel fall on the floor unbeknowst to me etc ... I used others devices for which as anybody who use them a blind test is not only fun but necessary by the way ... The goal is not debunking but refining the number of devices and their location effectivity etc ...

Your repeated insistence on DOUBLE blind test for others is very revelatory of your understanding and attitude ...

A marketing company must use this DOUBLE blind testing because they need statistical results , simple blind test in an incremental designing process as in my room acoustics is also rational; but asking others to be double blind tested to debunk them is children play ... Have fun ...

Scepticism is defined by 5 modalities and levels of experience in history of philosophy ...It is way more than a method of debunking ...

James Randi was running a business of his own it was never about science ...I am not a disciple of this showman...

I read not only about mathematics but mystics by the way ... 😊

Did you know that the founder of all modern mathematics was a christian mystic ?  ( it was in fact three christian mystics separated in time and disciple of one another the last is Georg Cantor )  i bet you did not know that Cantor was a mystic who taught theology and use the three methods of Dyonisos to create set theory limitation of size principle before the axiomatization and use the intuition of the mystic mathematician bishop Nicolaus of Cues about the absolute and relative infinite  to create set theory ... ... He was difficult to debunk trust me ... No one succceeded yet ...

“Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..”

I understand the practicalities of it. I actually do them. My brother had a great saying. “You don’t have to cut yourself to know you bleed.” You don’t have to do your own DBTs when they have already been done over and over and over again with the same results. You acceptedthe results from the one study you cited that used DBTs. Why would you not accept the results of the multitude of tests debunking cables, power cords and other such tweaks? And as for practicalities, it’s not really so impractical that one can’t do them. I somehow manage on a fairly regular basis

We are not in the same business here ...

Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi; myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...

I am also guy who look for the way to improve in an incremental way, at the lowest cost, my sound/musical experience and perception using basic principle of acoustics for experiments and for designing my speakers/room/ears relation ...I never bought any tweaks i prefer to create mine for my own use... When you own a low cost but good system , there is many design limitations to compensate for a bit ...

I succeeded in my modest way so much i am happy , i call it the minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold resulting from a relative balance ratio between all acoustics factors implied ...

With more money in the next year, because i cannot really mechanically eradicate destructive crosstalk effect successfully by myself , with a bit more money i will buy as you did already the BACCH filters ... Only reading the Dr.Choueiri explanation is enough for me to be convinced ...

I believe anyone of good faith anyway , and i can read science then i understand and believe Choueiri ... You describe it by the way very well yourself, it is an acoustic revolution not a toy and not a mere tool ...

Now you can debunk people here with your interpretation of science facts , i prefer to hear them without judgement as friends ...Even if some testimonies can be debunk, it is not my career occupation nor my hobby ... Remember that there exist no unanimous theory of hearing , to know why this is so , we must understand very deep problems in many fields from maths theoretical and applied , physics, neurophysiology psychology of perception , and last but not least philosophy problems related to Qualia and meanings ...

Knowledge is more than science and science is more than technology ... Wisdom is knowing it ... Transhumanism is the only cult i want to debunk , not some deluded audiophiles buying a cable with or without any effect ... I dont care ...

I wish you fun with your debunking blind testing company ...

I advise you to submit your CV to big pharma ...😁 I read that they need to "debunk" low cost non profit solutions effectiveness to replace them by highly profitable costly drugs ( safe and effective for sure  ) ...😊

Let me get to the point. I don’t trust anyone who claims to hear differences but are afraid to put their claims to a proper level matched ABX DBT. And so far you have dodged the question multiple times here. Anyone can claim to hear anything. And apparently you will believe it on faith. But if the differences are real that can be demonstrated with a positive result in a proper ABX DBT. If someone posed this question to me they wouldn’t have to ask twice. The answer is yes I’d be happy to demonstrate that everything in my system that I claim makes an audible difference does so under double blind level matched conditions.

so you believe anyone who says they can hear a difference no matter how dubious the claim. I believe anyone who can reliably demonstrate they can hear the difference in a proper controlled test. We just have different standards for what we believe

There is one thing you seems to not understand here ...

Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..

Blind test are useful practice in many industry for his statistical signifiance...THATS ALL ...

Blind test are useless for an individual incremental step by step process of tuning an audio system/room with many devices ...

Supposed now in an experiment i put a piece of shungite on an amplifier...

This amplifier is mine , the system is mine , the acoustic room is controlled by me for my ears ...

I listen and i recognize a difference ( positive or negative) with or without this piece of shungite on the amplifier ( i can ask my wife to put it or not on the amp ) ... I will use a piece of music i know very well on my room /system doing this ...

If i do the same experiment with a piece of quartz, i will recognize or not a positive or a negative difference or no difference at all ...

But it will be with my gear and my acoustic room ...

With another gear, another room, another music ; this test will have no meaningful result ...

We can do it statistically with a crowd using the same system and room for all and had results which will be positive in a low % for the perception of an effect and change ...

But this low % of beneficial results will in no way change or contradict the value of this positive results for my ears, with my specific gear, and my specific room and my music ...

Then we must not infer that a negative % results about a "tweak" means that the tweaks had no value ...

It is not also good science to infer from a mere placebo explanation... It will be simplistic and the usual way hard core objectivist simplistically eliminate a real perceived effect in some conditions for some ears as illusory ...

i dont believe and i dont buy tweaks by the way ...

I created mine at no cost ...😁

Experiment is science ... using statistic goes both way it can establish the value of a result or discredit a result as easily if you know how to falsify anything with statistics ( half of medical articles are made this way paid by big pharma ) ... See big pharma criminal methods use of statistic and this is a fact confirmed by many direc tors of the more prestigious medical journals ...Google it ..😊..

i am neither in the crowd of subjectivist audiophile nor in the crowd of objectivist ...

Sorry ...

I enjoy music at low cost by my own creative effort in simple way adressing electrical noise floor, mechanical vibrations/resonance and acoustics my own way AT NO COST ...

I dont promote scientism but simple experiments...I promote creativity not costlier upgrades ...

Dont sell me your blind test salad to discredit anything ...😊

We must learn how to hear even as adult ... It is enough for me ...I dont buy the accuracy salad on the limits of hearings... Because it is not even wrong ...It is beside the main point : qualia recognition and interpretation ...

My low cost system is enough for me as i tuned it by the way... It gave me minimal acoustic satisfaction passed this minimal threshold ... The only upgrade i need will be the BACCH filters you already own...

my best to you ...

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol.

ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment.

Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies , and in spite of certain criticism , theirs conclusions goes with the reseacrh trends in this hearing studies field ... I am not an objectivist nor a subjectivist... I am only interested by hearing, acoustics, sounds, musics ... And the source of qualia ...

What they say in their conclusion goes hand in hand with the deep and important research of J.J. Gibson in the visual field ... Then it appear to me that reversing that trend is not possible because hearing and seeing are way less stranger and distant to one another for the brain that what we think generally as non scientist ...

And by the way this article is related by me to the second article i put in my post by a physicist van Maanen about the conditions of application of the Fourier mappings in amplifier design for continuous sine waves signals versus dynamic musical signal in relation to the human ears ...

https://maa.org/news/math-news/human-hearing-not-constrained-by-gabor-limit

«Human Hearing Not Constrained by Gabor Limit

As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

For the aural memory problem , analysing it in pure quantitative terms is beside the main point and is not enough ... The body store aural memory in his metabolism rythm as emotions and as meanings too ...

Sound and musical memory are not only accurate quantities, they are essentially RECOGNIZED pattern of meanings perceived in their own non linear time domain and they are also emotions stored in our body and by which we can ressuscitate even consciousness ( alzheimer patient listening music . unborn babies growing a brain with rythm )

Reducing aural memory as a mere mechanistic process can be useful in technological experiment, and it must be so because technology to be efficient need limits ; but putting this mechanistic approach as the ONLY way human store sound memory is not only detrimental to hearing research it is simplistic ... Science dont reduce itself to technology...

Technology must simplify and use maps to work , but science goes on by facing complexity and reality, not mere maps...And knowledge is the ability to differentiate technology and science, maps and reality ...

Knowledge call for wisdom not for technology at the end ...

Our world is actually in a state of destruction created by ideological technocrats reducing not only wisdom and knowledge but science to technology for the sake of corporate greed and power ... I dont know if you learned something in the last 4 years humanity goes through, about science, greed, power, technology etc  but i learned a lot  ...

Do you or do you not accept the well researched established thresholds of human hearing and human aural memory?

What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories?

Read this and you will have a gist of an aspect of the problem ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Link this article above with this one about the conditions around a good audio design :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

For the competing theories about hearing, google it, there is many competing theories, but the main point is between theory of ecological perception inspired by J.J. Gibson in visual perception field and the theory based on a more traditional mechanical view ( Fourier, Helmholtz, etc )

By the way we must not conflate the immense progress in audio technology with pure scientific unresolved question about hearing itself ...

For example the fact we create A.I. with neural network are not a proof of our understanding of the brain AT ALL ... It is easy to demonstrate because consciousness dont emerge from the neural level , but from a much smaller scale according to the most important research in this field right now ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257134660_Consciousness_in_the_universe_a_review_of_the_%27ORCH_OR%27_theory

Technology is not science, and science is not knowledge ...

As transhumanism and other technological cult simplify it by reduction ...

my post was my opinion and not aimed at you but being after your post it was in some way related to your post...😁

My opinion is that there is many sciences involved not only one as in electrical engineering ...

Then in audio we must add all multidisciplinary factors at play ...

Then i cannot be subjectivist nor objectivist ... This is my opinion ..

And psycho-acoustics so technologically advanced it is and it is, had no complete understanding once for all of human hearing ... There is only competing theories ...

It was not my intention to attack you but to give my opinion here ... When we say that something make no difference because electrical engineering said so , it is not necessarily a scientific position ... Why ? because the problem is sometimes multidisciplinary and more complex than we think ... this is my point ...

And i dont like as you ad hominem attack ... we then can understand ourself ...

Dividing audio in two camps is useless...

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs?

Scientism has nothing to do with sciences ...

And sound quality perception is too complex to be reduced to electrical engineers explanation... Psycho-acoustics also play the most part in the sound studies ...

This does not means that amplifier designer work with their mere only taste to design more musical gear, they can use psycho-acoustics results, about harmonics perception ,the non linear time domain of the brain or crosstalk effects on the brain etc ...

As i said , objectivist and subjectivist are two opposed and deluded groups about a too complex problem : the objective conditions and the subjective correlated conditions in the perception of qualities ...

Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...

«Complexity and intelligence begin as claimed the late Charles Sanders Peirce with the number three » -- Anonymus thinker 🧐

«The three musketeers were four because three is not the end of the world»-- Anonymus Alexandre Dumas reader

«For the sake of power any group can be usefully  divided in two : the good and the bad »-- Anonymus Machiavelli reader

Hater love to hate ... You are right ...

But your explanation is simplistic ...

It is not necessary to spend big money to have a minimal acoustic satisfaction if we learn how to do it ... most people are lazy or lack the time to learn ( i am retired) ... Some hate high end for the reason you mention , some hate the price abuse because they dont know how to make any system at any price great and optimal for his potential specific level of S.Q. and needs ...

Some with high end systems hate also people like me happy and who knows why and how to be happy with acoustics knowledge and a low cost system because in their head the price tag only have a meaning and i claim too much and devalorize their costly gear by my claims ( it is not true because there exist for sure differences in S.Q, level qualities )...

hate have many roots as you see not only one ; and when you are creative as some are you dont loose your time in hating ...

But it is knowledge who rule audio minimal acoustical satisfaction not price tag ... This threshold is enough for most people .. And trust me  my system is not a frustrating stopgap... One can be proud of his very costly system as Mike Lavigne who worked hard to created it and i am not envious at all , i admire him; and i am as creative as he was but with a low cost system in a dedicated room ...

First low cost gear is not to be confused with cheap gear as you do ...

Second good low cost gear can give very great acoustic result even if for sure it is under the quality of high end system potential ...

Third if someone dont study, experiment and learn how to create S.Q. with acoustics, then anyway  with high end or low cost system he will be sensitive to critics and he will react with hate often or with very forceful dislike and scepticism ...

Psycho-acoustics and creativity  rule audio not price tag ....

Those who ignore the first and do not bother with the second are sentenced by their attitude to hate at worst and frustration at best ....It is the case with high end owners as wii5th low cost system owners ...

Haters just want to hate.

Seriously, I think the hate comes from people who don’t want to spend more money on better sound, so they justify and rationalize that by convincing themselves that cheap gear sounds as good as high dollar gear.

In my experience money and high end upgrades so superior they could be matter way less than acoustics with an (s)...

Even the definition of what is the source of the playback is confused with the choices of a dac or a turntable creating meaningless debates about the gear choices and by putting emphasis on gear fetichism , missing then the acoustics /psycho-acoustics problems which are conflated then , not even to mere room acoustic controls but this last conflated with few panels on a wall ...

The source is acoustics of the recording original room process , nevermind the digital or analog choices , the end result is not FROM the speakers but from the ears/brain/system-speakers/room parameters ..

Sound experience is a qualia , a wholeness we can control to some point with acoustics/psycho-acoustics ...But it is not a mere quantity, save for those who confuse the experience with some parameters, and those who conflate sound experience acoustics conditions with the gear experience...

Most audiophiles i observed if i read threads brag about their gear not about their acoustics knowledge and experience .... And anyway even the embeddings electrical and mechanical controls matter as much that the gear choices and prices in most cases ...

Most gear/system price bragging result from acoustics ( with an S) ignorance ...

Ask Mike Lavigne who knows something what is  the ratio cost of his dedicated room versus his gear price  and the ratio of S. Q. possible in this acoustic dedicated  room versus with these speakers or other speakers or versus different amplifiers ... The room controls is the main determinant even if all matter for sure ...

We need on earth a change of the scale there was in the American revolution against the British...

Ask the Europeans with a brain if they appreciate the American empire way to sell them gas and piloting them through the corrupted European union ...

Effective real change in systems are necessary at some point , like earthquake at some threshold point ... We are there , all corporate big powers are not only corrupted to the bones they destruct Earth, nature, and even science ...

Ask doctor Bill Gates, Ask Ursula Von der Leyen among other monsters with or without brain ....And ask Robert Kennedy why the most important event in political history the murder of the two Kennedys is not under a serious inquiry after 72 years. like murders of a president in a banana republic  ...All the others unanswered questions are related in a way or in another to this elephant in the room ...Oliver Stone spoke well of this in a popular easy to understand way...

US is a nation in denial ... As was the soviet for other reasons ... Lies are the rule in the two cases ... Calling one freedom against evil is a slogan invented by CIA agent ...

No, they’re not. Effecting real change in systems is rare. Yes, it happens, but incremental change is much more common.

No, they’re not. Effecting real change in systems is rare. Yes, it happens, but incremental change is much more common.

Suppress big corporations ...Big finance...   Change the money concept ... Downsize democracy to human scale ...

Quit being an empire ... Quit being the best to be the less worst ... Reveal the destructive nature of transhumanism ...And reveal how science exist no more at the hand of technocratic masters ...

Read Soljenistsyn discourse after he was ousted from Soviet regime and speak to "freer" america about truth and spirit and see how his predictions about America are now fully realized for the worst ... ...He predicted the failure of Soviet regime and also the failure of America for the same reasons : lies and materialism and totalitarian ideology or totalitarian corporations ...

So, I am curious. If, "it doesn’t have to be that way", then what are you suggesting people do to "change the system that caters to millionaires", other than voting with their wallets?

For me audio hobby was never about the "best" gear...

It was about the optimization of what we can afford for the sake of music ...

It was not about the wallet size but about creativity ...

It was not about "upgrades" but about the three working dimensions ways of control : mechanical,electrical and acoustical ...

I just listened to a 500,000 bucks system on youtube , very well known dude , and his room is atrocious, it is audible and clear in spite of his panels ... fatiguing system not because of the high tech gear but because he dont use the right method to make it more musical ... details are not music ... Price tag dont beat acoustics knowledge at all ...

Then listening to his system compared to mine at 700 bucks make me proud and happy ...😊 Incredible ... Because so good his system could be some big defect undetected by him even if it is evident are in my face not in his face because he look ALWAYS for more details not for acoustic musicality ...Acoustics is about musicality not details given by the gear piece he sell ...

We must quit branded name fetichism of the gear and of the tool, study acoustics which is not mere room acoustic panels ...

This hobby is about learning music and acoustic experience not about the 40 amplifiers someone could afford to try and compared ... Ridiculous obsession with no real learning ... The user manual is not acoustics book...

I learned a lot about the way to make any gear system optimally musical relatively to his level of quality/price for sure ...my gear value so good the design is are not Mile Lavigne ballpark ...( i respect him because he know a lot , it is evident when you see his dedicated acoustic room )

I was in the obligation to create a concept for audiophile because it does not existed here in this forum before i wrote it : minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold starting point which is determined by some optimal ratio between all acoustics factors implied for some gear/room/ears...This threshold passed is enough to be in sonic heaven with no frustration...Better dont means satisfying ...

Then we must learn how to work on these acoustic factors with the gear we own BEFORE any upgrade, if our gear is synergetical to begin with for sure...WE must train our ears with what we do first and last , not with what we buy ...

To do that we must identify these factors one by one in our system/room/ears and look how we can improve them one by one and all together ... Be it reverberation time, reflective ratio and location, dispersion , sound source dimension , listener location and envelopment, crosstalk, transients, dynamic, bass, pressure distribution zones, the 5 factors determining timbre , immersiveness in headphone and speakers...

Wwe must learn also how vibrations and resonance destruct the acoustic experience and how powerfully destructive is a too higher electrical noise floor of the house and of each part of the system ... We must learn about EMI and unusual device to control the room atmosphere as ionization and schumann generators...We must become creative and think ...Forgetting to be passive consumers frustrated because we could not afford a Dartzeel amplifier ... I dont need that to be proud and in a relative sonic heaven .....Trust me happiness can only be born of thinking and creativity not from money most of the times ...Money can help at best ...

The crisis in the last 4 years demonstrated that there is no democracies, only grey nuance of totalitarian fashions...Oligarchs and lobbies rules...

Even in Canada ...

You’re being silly because it’s essentially impossible for any of us to change our economic system. But given that you’re so dissatisfied with it, why do you remain a passive victim to a system you dislike? There are other countries that operate under different systems. Some are democracies, too. It’s a big world!

The interesting point made by unreceivedogma was to me describing how the price levels of audio gear reflect our dissonnant North American society classes of ultra rich and poors with a decreasing mid class loosing his grip on reality , thinking democracy exist ...Wait till the next crisis to see whats left of democracy...

The difference between totalitarian China and Canada and america decrease politically and dont increase... Welcome in a mix of 1984 and the best of the world, compliment of big corporations ... A,I. is there for our own good now ...😁

Human nature dictates that the more comfortable we are with our decisions for everything from stuff to life's forks in the road, the less negativity we feel for differing opinions. 

Great truth! thanks ...

 

I’ve been at this hobby for 55 years. There was a guy named Hafler who built Dynaco into a little juggernaut of high quality - affordable!!! - gear for the lumpen proletariat types like myself. Hundreds of thousands sold. Rebuilt Dyna units are still the best bang for the buck out there today. 
 

Prices today are a reflection of the (passive, like you maybe?) acceptance of the grossly unequal economic structure we have in the U.S. today. It doesn’t have to be that way. 
 

This is the main reason why I don’t bother with new gear, I just keep the stuff I have refurbished and in top running order. I’m here in audiogon mostly out of curiosity or FOMO. But I will put my 38-67 year old gear up against anything on the market today and while it may not be the best according to some, it will righteously acquit itself. 

Great lines thanks!

Envy results from passivity, lack of creativity, fetischism of the gear, gullibility to marketing, ignorance of basic acoustics ( no not room acoustic merely ) ...

I am so proud of my 700 bucks system and the ways i imagined to improve it that i suffer from the opposite sin : pride ...

Being here i learn about my own specific ignorance and it help curing me of this other sin ....😉

Thanks to all ...

I concur with your post speaking about people with no knowledge of high end gear and no musical knowledge or education in classical and jazz who bashed and insulted calling people snobs ...

But you forgot , between the fewer completely informed and the mass of ignorant , the crowd of the partially informed, even with high end products , gear fetichist in some way, with no knowledge about acoustics and system working embeddings electrical and mechanical controls, braggingt about their favorite costlier piece of gear ... Acoustics with an (s) is not simple room acoustic by the way ...

Psycho-acoustics rule the gear not the reverse...And not price tag ....

I have noticed the vitriol as well (I think we all have).

It started around 2010 (or 2012 if you go to the Steve Hoffman forums). I can see exactly when the threads began being nasty (mid 2012). From what I can see, before I left that forum over this very subject (hatefulness) , the majority of members there have very modest equipment, and have never heard the truly High End equipment. (Or they heard it, and it was set up badly, but, since it was at a dealers, it MUST have been set up right, and the sound was just crappy and not worth the price!)

I was an audiophile back in the early 80s, and it was a "Golden Age" of sorts, with astounding advances in equipment. And prices were not stratospheric, either.

But more than just the equipment itself, I’ve also come to realize that most of the people commenting on forums have never been to a symphonic or jazz concert back at a time when they did not use microphones for every instrument/performance. And 48 track for recording (and we can thank the Beatles for that! (and I love the Beatles!)). So, they have no idea how music sounds in real life without a zillion microphones blasting at them thru a mediocre system that doesn’t reproduce the dynamic nuances, which are the very essence of life music (acoustic, I repeat) and not miked. I have asked, time and again, if they go to acoustic music concerts. I can’t recall a single response being "yes" when I asked that. They have no experience with live, unamplified music.

 

On top of that, most of these people also do do not trust their ears, but how could they if they do not know what "the real thing" sounds like? It also does not occur to the people on forums in 2023 that the goal - back then - of audiophile designers (for the most part) was: trying to design equipment that could sound as "real" as possible (with all of the dynamic/steadystate/transient pluck/imaging and soundstaging attributes one would hear live) , and that meant acoustic instruments. Since most people don’t listen to that (and never did), how can they be expected to recognize what is objective reality (the actual sound of an instrument - or voice) in person? They believe in what "sounds good to me" and not what is objectively closer to a recording of a properly recorded instrument/voice/performance. They just can’t relate. So they sneer and bash instead. I would imagine that that same sentiment applies to other areas of their life, as well. Seems a rather miserable way to live life, but it’s their life.

 

+1 noromance

+1 calvinj OP

I admired high end gear...

If i could afford it i will buy it ...

It is the only way to create new tech. and downsizing it at affordable price for the mass  with the time passing ...

People dont hate high end , they reacted to the impossibility to buy it ...

But there is not only high end design for the S.Q. end goal in audio ; there is also plenty of contributing factors at low cost that will make shine a low cost system so much, as mine, that we can live very well with this minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...

Among these low cost factors there is the mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions...

If i had not been blessed by a low income to begin with , i would have never experimented acoustics and learned  other system embeddings controls homemade for more than a full year full time ... Never , it would have been easier to buy panels and called it job done with way costlier components ...

But my limited  wallet dimensions  were a benediction finally ...

Now even if it is not  for sure at the level of high end , my audio system is so good that i almost pity most of those who can afford it more than i really envy ... I learned a lot with fun  ... So is human nature between envy or pride  ... 😊

I am like you sound fanatic if i am honest ...😊

But I am proud about the fact that i based my research on creativity and on the acoustics and mechanical and electrical factors upon which i can work at low cost ...

I am not obsessed by gear... I cannot afford costly pieces of gear...

Anyway i succeeded with my last small speakers modified to create relatively more than just good sound for the price invested ...

But my refence top system is headphone... I used one of the top headphone in the world and the best of AKG ever ( his k701 for example is trash compared to the K340  even the K240 is not at all in the same ball park, the K1000 has no deep bass  ) ...I modify it a bit and optimize it after  6 months of experiments ...This hybrid is so astonishing now than upgrading it is too risky business ... How many headphones can give a perfecy imahing and holographic, and a  soundfield out of the head and a natural realistic timbre with deep clear  bass at any price ? ( easy to verify with big organ music)

Dont look too hard very, very few headphones,  if they exist ...I dont need to buy one at 5,000 bucks ...

I am proud of creativity not of my gear collection ...

then there is different obsession types about sound ... 😁

@mahgister im sound obsessed. Every little detail. Soundstage depth width air realness of instruments decay etc. not afraid to admit it.

The problem with "cliches" is that they are not even true or wrong , they are caricature asking to be slogan and wanting to be repeated ...

i obsess with my low cost audio system because it gave me the eternal joy of music listening ...

My wife with a ears loss and looking at my modified speakers (100 bucks ) think that i am nuts but no snob jerk ...

As you see there is exception all are not snob , some are simply "nuts" , myself i prefer to say of myself acoustically informed but it is too pedantic generally to say such thing , then call me "nuts" ...😁😊

«I will love to hate sometimes  but it is too much work»--Groucho Marx 🤓

Cliches often become such for a reason.
“Audiophiles are lame, snobby jerks” is no exception.

Simplistic argument facing a complex problem...

You forgot those who own costly gear systems in their living room that sound not so much good as it could be even if it seems to sound only marginally better and merely different more than better than a low cost gear system ... ...Go and visit show room too with costly system  ...verify my claim ...

Guess why  this is so ?😊😁

Ignorance does not reveal itself only through poor gear choices at low cost but also with those with 50,000 bucks system ...

Then guess why i am right and that mechanical, electrical and especially acoustical working controls devices matter more than the price tag ?

For sure a 1000 dollars amplifier will not generally work at the acoustical level of a 10,000 bucks one , save for some exception , but an electrical,mechanical and acoustioal controlled environment matter way more than the price tag if we want at least cross over the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold, and this is true for all system at all price  ...

What i say is not in any gear manual owner , guess why ?

😊

it is not good for the business to sell gear that cannot work at their optimal level without  the thinking owner  in the obligation to work and taking care of these three working dimensions , nevermind the gear level and price ..

The seller of costly amplifier or speakers who will reveal that any gear at any price will work imperfectly in a non controlled mechanical,electrical and acoustical environment is not born till this day ...

guess why ?

They want to sell you a perfect plug and play system and convince you at this price tag that you need nothing else than their product for sure ...

Believing this is ignorance , the true ignorance which plague rich as poor owners ...

Acoustics rules audio not price tag ... And if you think that i spoke about acoustic panels here you have understood anything yet...

There are many websites and even here in agon that have many people who think their 20,000 dollars amp and speakers is perfect plug and play and the end of the world and who laugh at people like me owning low cost gear ... the ignorance is not necessarily with people like  me ...

There are many websites like ANA and even here on agon that have people think their $299 stereo amp has the best sq of anything out there or that cables don’t matter. But on those naysayer websites, I’ve questioned them many times about why they are using a pair of $50 cables and not the $.02 cables that come with their components and their replies are always the $50 cables sound better but that’s the cutoff ($50) where you get diminishing returns. You will find audiophools all over.
I also agree with the OP, I also think that people who can’t afford high quality components make excuses like their cheap stuff sounds every bit as good as the expensive stuff or that they are just jealous that people want to get the best sq they can which normally means you have to spend some money. Same goes for everything else in life: homes, cars, art, etc

I pretty much think the same as you ...

The goal of audio thread for me the first one goal is to partake ideas about the way to reach a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold at the best cost ...

Bragging about high end gear is useless ...

Even high end gear need to be embed in the right mechanical, electrical and acoustical conditions anyway ...

The cost of a system dont matter . the goal must be optimize  what you own ...

Price tags dont matter , acoustics science matter if we want to reach the best with what we have or with what we must purchase   at the lowest possible cost ...

@mahgister i researched the hell out of every component speaker and sub in my system using the knowledge that I gained in this hobby over the years. For example my Gato speakers were designed by a former senior designer at gamut. I researched them to the hilt. Say that they were similar to a speaker twice the cost. Realized he designed that speaker for another company as well I ordered it. 9 years later still my reference. My amps and Dac have design elements that have zero noise floor and implement design elements to provide power and limit distortion at every turn. I was the ear for the cabling that we use at the company. So even though the system is expensive I just didn’t pick stuff because it was expensive but it met the design and performance elements that I sought. I have room challenges so it needed to perform in my conditions and it does that well. It’s not about what you spend. Design, performance, environments, personal tastes and equipment matching are all important. Truth of the matter is some of the higher end equipment build quality and design lows it to achieve things sonically that most other equipment just can’t reach. However you can still get pleasing sound out of a well put together system without spending a crazy amount of money.

Exactly and well said ...Thanks riccitone and welcome...

Dissing high end audio is stupid...high end gear are just more refined and more effective design ...

We can criticize price but i am incompetent to do so really ...

We can as i did observe that there is a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold , and we can cross this threshold with relatively low prices component studying acoustics and controlling vibrations and the noise floor level ...

We cannot reach top acoustic satisfaction treshold with a low cost system ... At best we  learn how to  go nearer to it with some other low cost component  ... thats all ...

I learned how to be happy with what i have by optimizing all the gear  working conditions ...

Those who are ignorant feel envy or live in denial and frustration  or believe in price tags or believe that their system work optimally when it really did not because they were able to afford high end but without  being able to understand how to use it in optimal conditions ...

Acoustics concepts and electrical and mechamical embeddings controls rules over anything ...

Sorry for the bad news ...

Be happy with what you have, learn how to work with it to reach an optimal level commensurate with the gear design quality level...It will not be high end maximum acoustic satisfaction threshold for sure but the minimal satisfaction threshold is already a paradise ...

Happiness dont measure in dollars , and can be engineered by your own creativity ...Develop yours BEFORE upgrading ...

One of my favorite post ever ... thanks ...

A lagrange point for ego ... 😊

Perhaps like a pareto optimal utility function, there is a Lagrange point for ego…..

Very important observation ...

20 years ago many companies were owned by True audiophiles , not corporations,